Smear Campaign Ramps Up Against Those Who Believe Free Speech Is More Important Than Hollywood's Obsolete Business Model

from the what-innovation-has-the-internet-brought dept

When the entertainment industry got the usual suspects to push the PROTECT IP Act forward, the story around DC was that this bill was a slam dunk. Who was possibly going to resist a bill against evil "rogue" sites that were stealing our jobs and "ideas?" When Senator Ron Wyden put a "hold" on PROTECT IP, we were told by supporters of the bill that this was just a phantom protest and the bill was going to pass easily. It might still... but, it appears that some are beginning to get worried. After all, since the bill came to light, the complaints against it have been pretty clear and pretty loud -- and not from lobbyists, but from the actual people who understand it (much of the "support" from the bill comes from lobbyists).

But, still, the folks who support the bill like to cling to the idea that the support for the bill is widespread and strong, and it's just a small minority against it. And, now, they're ratcheting up smear campaign attacks on those who see the problems with the bill. And, of course, Senator Wyden is apparently target number one. Take, for example, this hilariously weak attack on Senator Wyden from something called "The Chilling Report" -- a weak takeoff on "Chilling Effects," which is really a front for MiMTiD, an "anti-piracy" outfit we've written about before, due to it's laughable claim that forwarding on its takedown notices to sites like Chilling Effects was, itself, infringing (it's not). It appears that MiMTiD's John L. DuPuis is no fan of Senator Wyden, though, you won't get a coherent explanation of why from the blog post. But let's tackle some of the nuttier claims.

Of course the Rhode Island Senator [Sheldon Whitehouse] was referring to the total destruction of U.S. intellectual property over the past ten years.

Hyperbole much? Considering that actual research has shown greater creative output than ever before, how can anyone make such a claim with a straight face? If anything has been destroyed, it's the credibility of John L. DuPuis. "Intellectual property" continues to be created at record levels. Now, DuPuis might be just sloppy, and he could actually mean "intellectual property laws," even if he left off the "laws" part. But even then the statement doesn't pass the guffaw test. Over the last few decades, all we've seen are those laws (specifically copyright, since that's what we're really discussing) tilted further and further in favor of one party (and not the party that copyright laws were most designed to benefit). The 1976 Act was a massive expansion of copyright law. Add to that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, the DMCA, ProIP and a few other changes here and there and all we've seen is the continuous expansion of copyright law.

The most vocal opponent of new common sense legislation by Congress is Senator Ron Wyden.... His views concerning the Internet are the most pernicious for copyright holders today

"Common sense" legislation is not legislation that censors free speech, puts liability on unrelated third parties, messes with the DNS system and is wide open to massive abuse. Seriously, DuPuis, just because you call something "common sense" legislation, that doesn't make anyone who understands the bill suddenly believe it. The bill is seriously broken.

Furthermore, Wyden's views are not at all "pernicious" for copyright holders today. He appears to actually understand the unintended consequences of something like PROTECT IP and has no interest in dealing with the fallout. Considering how many wonderful things the internet has created for "copyright holders" today, and Wyden's main concerns being that such innovations will continue to be able to be made and to spread, I'd argue the exact opposite of what DuPuis has said here. It seems like Wyden is looking out for copyright holders, by making sure that new laws don't prematurely kill off or slow down the sorts of innovations that have made it possible for content creators to thrive like they never have in the past.

Wyden’s criticism attempts to make it seem so dishonorable as he attempt to vilify members on the Judiciary Committee, who are unanimously in favor of tough new oversight. Wyden’s concise use of the age-old political ploy of invoking the language of Political Idealism has the desired impact on the misinformed and weak-minded. When reading Wyden’s idealistic and negative view of new Internet oversight many will say, “...How could anyone be against free speech?” Others will probably cry out, “That’s un-American for god’s sakes...” Of course everyone knows no fair-minded American could be against any of the basic tenants of a free society, free speech, and an unfettered open Internet. I would venture to say that we are all against giving licenses to foreign regimes to sensor the Internet. But of course that’s not the issue here. The issue is not, as Wyden would have you believe, stifling free speech or tearing down the foundations of the Internet. The issue is how to maintain an environment where pirates can continue to assault rights holders while some make billions of dollars ripping off content of legitimate rights holders.

I have to admit that I read this paragraph a few times over, and I'm not quite sure what DuPuis is really trying to say here. I saw no attempt by Senator Wyden to vilify the Senate Judiciary Committee (I, on the other hand, am happy to do so, but to claim that Senator Wyden did seems strange). The rest of the paragraph comes off as a "the lady doth protest too much" sorta thing. He goes on and on, sarcastically mocking the idea that free speech might be important, while failing to explain how the concerns raised by Senator Wyden and many others about free speech have not been shown to be false by any measure.

New legislation, in the view of the majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee members, would put common sense remedies in place to stop the massive and unprecedented transfer of wealth from the United States.

Ah, once again, with the "common sense" claim. Maybe if you repeat it enough times someone will believe it.

Instead Senator Wyden releases a statement May 12th, 2011 referencing the Protect IP Act where Wyden chooses whimsical metaphorical references like “bunker busting bombs” and “strategic guided missiles” in referring to elements of the COICA legislation he opposes. Could these references be anymore misleading about the true intent of the responsible members of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Could the choice of such incendiary references, which are carefully composed by member’s of Wyden’s staff, tell us more about Wyden’s true intentions than his assertions that innovation will be stifled or trampled free speech? In my view it had nothing to do with any of those assertions, but instead more to do with the preservation of Wyden’s own political future.

I think those statements show the exact intent of Senator Wyden: to point out that the bill is written in a broad way such that the impact will be felt way beyond the targets, and that the collateral damage will be severe. This is not a hypothetical. We've already seen that similar interpretations of existing US law for US sites (PROTECT IP is targeted at foreign sites) have taken down protected free speech, seizing tons of websites without due process. Furthermore, while folks keep insisting that this law will only be used against the "worst of the worst" "rogue sites," we've also seen that Universal Music seems to define "rogue sites" as popular hip hop magazines and blogs -- and even the personal site of one of its biggest stars. And DuPuis really thinks Senator Wyden is out of line for questioning the broad reach of the law?

After ten years of Safe Harbor protection crafted and set in place to protect intellectual property but also to provide protection for technological innovation, what do we have to show for it? What we have now is a nearly bankrupt record business, Mainland China running on stolen U.S. software and thousand of websites dedicated to copyright infringment.

Correction: there are some record labels that are nearly bankrupt, but the music business is thriving at unheard of levels. And, with new business models and new revenue streams, combined with innovative new tools for creation, promotion, distribution and monetization, musicians are actually making more money than ever before. Damn those facts. As for China "running on stolen software," various reports and studies have shown that the infringement rate in China has actually helped Microsoft, by keeping much of the country on its platform rather than moving to open source alternatives. In fact, Microsoft has admitted as much in the past.

So what innovation resulted from the Safe Harbors? By far the most notable has been Google, Facebook, Farmville Games, and Pandora, which are Internet darlings at the moment.

And this is the part that should just make you burst out with laughter. Yes, those are the only innovations. Pick and choose, much? You know what other innovations have come from those safe harbors? iTunes, eBay, Bandcamp, Kickstarter, Eventful, TopSpin, SoundCloud, TuneCore, SongKick and a ton of other awesome tools for creating, promoting, funding, distributing, connecting and monetizing.

However, the protections provided by the Safe Harbor has also resulted in the loss of billions and billions dollars and hundreds of thousands of American jobs here at home. So while these new and incredible technical innovations like Facebook and Pandora are celebrated as Internet wonders, the U.S. continues to have its intellectual treasure dished out to the rest of the world in the name of free speech.

Seriously? What "billions and billions of dollars" have been lost? Nothing's been lost. If you look at the actual economics, you see that the music industry has continued to grow all this time. Yes, some of the money has shifted around, and more of it is going to the actual creators, which may put some gatekeeper middlemen out of work, but that's how disruption works. And most of us consider that a good thing. And, in the meantime, if you seriously wants to pretend that the recording industry has "lost" more jobs over the past decade than the internet has created, you've got bigger problems than just getting the latest bad law approved.

Now let’s take a little closer look at Senator Ron Wyden’s (D-Oregon) point of view. His continuing diatribe concerning potential freedoms lost is tiresome and for the most part ridiculous. His references to “…given license to foreign regimes to further censor the Internet for political reasons,” seems a bit out of touch to me as I watch events of the “Arab Spring” develop on my flat screen T.V. Just for the record, when “oppressive regimes” do what they do to “oppress” they usually do so without paying much attention to the finer issues of freedom of the Internet. As we have seen in China, which incidentally is the recipient of most of our intellectual wealth, is oppressive but ironically China has profited greatly due to inaction United States Government.

Apparently DuPuis is unfamiliar with the State Department's own claims of wishing to support internet freedom around the globe, relying in large part on the US's record on free speech to do so. Taking a step back from that with a bill designed to censor websites is already providing regimes in India, China and other countries with an argument to justify their own (much more draconian) censorship regimes.

Today in China forty-three percent of elementary age students aspire to become computer hackers then march valiantly into cyberspace looking to steal more and more American intellectual property.

I'm not even going to ask what orifice the 43% number came out of. But even if that is true, I have to question what that has to do with PROTECT IP. As defenders of the law keep insisting, under PROTECT IP, these rogue sites would still be available outside the US. So this law would have no impact on these hordes of Chinese hackers.

I can’t help but think Senator Wyden should put his country’s survival before the needs of his misinformed and misdirected constituents. He should step up and do what is right. He should stop immediately in his attempts to “gut” every effort made by Congress to clean up the Internet and secure the rights of those who own intellectual property.

Wait, what?!? His "country's survival"? Is DuPuis really trying to claim that the country will collapse without PROTECT IP? It won't. Second, like all good politicians, Senator Wyden is listening to his constituents, but he's also doing what's right. Believe it or not, the two can be the same thing. In this case, he's paying attention to a very real risk to the technical structure of the internet and the basic framework of free speech in America.

Tragically, nowhere does DuPuis even bother to try to respond to those claims. And that's probably because he can't. The technologists who understand how the internet works have already weighed in and pointed out PROTECT IP breaks the internet. The investors who funded massive amounts of innovation online have weighed in and pointed out that PROTECT IP will stifle investment into new innovation. The lawyers and law professors who helped shape the laws that make sure that free speech is preserved online have weighed in and pointed out that PROTECT IP will hinder free speech. It seems like Senator Wyden is on the side of what's good and what's right here. The real question is why aren't the other 99 Senators lined up behind him?

I am still not sold on the idea that " greater creative output" is the other end of the line from protecting the rights of IP creators. It seems that the creative output is mostly mowing the same lawn over and over again.

Re: "The real question is why aren't the other 99 Senators lined up behind him"

2 resons, money & the very simple fact that most of them dont understand the technology (and dont seem to be in a hurry to learn more either), so its easier to sway them to your point of view with some well placed "facts"...even if those "facts" arent necessarily true...

I am also equally at a loss at how protecting IP somehow limits free speech. The only speech that it might limit is the duplication of the speech that others have made. Are we poorer because we cannot repeat ourselves over and over again?

Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

Me: I think you are wrong here. The internet is the fuzz dice in the car. Remove the car, and the fuzzy dice mean nothing. Without content, the internet is an empty pipe. If the content is only trash, it's a waste of a pipe.

Remember: things are pirated because they are popular and desirable, not the other way around.

Profiting from safe harbors comes at the expense of others. The ends do not justify the means, Robin Hood.

Re:

It's because they are having trouble "protecting ip", they say it's too hard (thats the whole point of the Protect IP act) so they want to be allowed to use the shotgun approach and blow away anything and everything instead and just call it "protecting ip". For instance, they "accuse" one poster on one site of infringment, they take down the whole site, and all other sites that are hosted by the same hosting service, plus a bunch of others that they imagine have some sort of connection. Then they find out there was no infringment to begin with and their accusation was baseless.

Give DuPuis some credit....

"Wyden’s concise use of the age-old political ploy of invoking the language of Political Idealism has the desired impact on the misinformed and weak-minded. When reading Wyden’s idealistic and negative view of new Internet oversight many will say, “...How could anyone be against free speech?” Others will probably cry out, “That’s un-American for god’s sakes...”"

That's an accusation of Jedi-Mind-Trickery and blaspheme in the form of no capitalization of the Lord's name all in a couple sentences.

Re: Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

Paul, I am sorry, no, I am not saying that the rest of the internet is "only trash", only that if all you have left is trash, then it is a waste of a pipe.

What comes out of Hollywood may be trash in your opinion. However, it is clear that the most pirated material on the internet is the very IP that this act seeks to protect. If people were mostly trading Sita Sings the Blues and Corey Smith songs, I don't think anyone would care. It is clear that the product coming out of Hollywood, no matter how "trashy", is the product that the masses want, desire, and value.

The people opposing the protect IP act and other attempts to protect the rights of the producers tend to forget that the content is what the people want. Otherwise, there would be no issue.

Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

The fact is that it is very hard to be against ProtectIP, because what you are supporting as a result is widespread piracy, and companies that have made their bones on the backs of others by playing the safe harbour and DMCA laws like a violin, using copyrighted material knowingly, until notified, and playing within the grey area that exists.

The holes are huge, and the no longer provide a balance for both sides. The laws have to be changed to address the imbalance between rights holders and consumers, which has in the past 10 years become tilted heavily to the consumer.

Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

What is the sound of an orchestra playing in the vacuum?

Oh, that's right, sound does not propagate in a vacuum.

What is my point then?

Like sound, knowledge and culture needs a medium to propagate. The Internet provides the currently most advanced medium. Despite all it's faults, it is the most stable and powerful medium we have to spread knowledge and culture. You can take advantage of it, or you could keep trying to play in the vacuum. It's all the same to me...others will come that will take advantage of it.

"I can’t help but think Senator Wyden should put his country’s survival before the needs of his misinformed and misdirected constituents."

Hm. So let me get this straight. DuPuis is saying that instead of doing what Senator Wyden was elected to do (represent his constituents), he should instead listen to monied interests and property holders.

More people should be balking at the fact that he just honestly admitted that he's suggesting the subversion of representation in our government in favor of property owners.

Why do individuals need to vote when their corporations can vote for them?!?

Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

What are you on crack? What on earth makes you think being agains the ProtectIP act means you are for "widespread piracy"? Thats like saying being against the death penalty means you are pro-rape... it's a loadocrap.

Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

Can you elaborate on this?

companies that have made their bones on the backs of others by playing the safe harbour and DMCA laws like a violin, using copyrighted material knowingly, until notified, and playing within the grey area that exists.

Re: Re: Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

So we should break the entire internet to protect one single oudated industry, when the fact of the matter is that instant communication, ie the internet, has completely changed the very fabric of humanity? sounds like a few fat cats too used to getting the big piece of pie are starting to think they should get the whole pie

Re:

Re: Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

Probably the best example is YouTube. Youtube plays the DMCA game, allowing unlimited uploads, and then removing stuff only when rights owners complain. Even if the complaint comes in 1 second after a video is uploaded, they have up to 48 hours to react within the law.

Many of the file locker sites hide behind safe harbor rules, even though their business model is based on charging people to more quickly download materials that are often infringing. They only remove based on DMCA complaints, and use the full 48 hours to their advantage.

They play the game of the grey area, being aware that a percentage of the material on their sites is illegal or infringing, but generally not taking proactive action until they have been ordered to do so by the courts (in the case of Youtube).

Re: Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

so youtube is supposed to police its users? whats the point of user generated content then, oh right there isnt supposed to be any cause your boss at the RIAA wouldnt get any money off it.

music locker sites, of which only google and amazon could be said to belong to this category, so while I'll let you slide with calling two website 'many' I will say that they make like no money off these services, amazon gives away 2g free and charges for more, but that has literrally nothing to do with downloading infringing content, while google is just ad revenue.

you demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of even the most basic issues, but then again you are being paid to not understand so I cant really blame you, I can only pity the fact that you have no mind of your own and that the shiney little car in your driveway was the exact amount that your principles were worth

Re: Re: Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

You can call it a loophole or a grey area, but that's not what it is. It's a vital safety valve on the DMCA, put there intentionally and with full knowledge of the "loopholes" it creates - because without that breathing room, copyright law very quickly becomes prior restraint and a major violation of the First Amendment.

Re: Re: Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

Understood. But I don't understand why you made the comment in the first place other than to imply that without MPAA content, the rest of the internet is just "trash".

Although I do question your conclusion that because the content is downloaded because the masses value it. I think there is a certain percentage of IP infringement that takes place because an end user DOES value the content and simply doesn't want to pay for it. I also think that there is a percentage of IP infringement that occurs because end users do NOT value the content and don't want to waste money on something that they really don't see any value in.

I have recommended to my friends and co-workers that they see "Watchmen". I recommend it because I want them to waste three hours of their lives watching a load of crap so we can poke fun at the movie afterwards. I don't expect them to place any value in the content and I would never recommend that they go out of their way to actually PAY to see it.

If I purchase a hard-goods product and that product fails to live up to expectations, is faulty, or of poor quality; I can bring it back. I wish I could do the same for movies I have purchased that simply sucked.

I'm getting off on a tangent here. Back on point;

I have no issues with content creators making money off their works, and I have no issue with content creators protecting their IP.

I do have an issue when said content creators seek to change the fundamental structure of the Internet and force these changes on EVERY industry as their method of protection.

I do have an issue with the underhanded methods that the MPAA and RIAA have engaged in to change law to benefit them personally with no consideration for the rest of us.

I do have an issue with the fact that under some of these proposed laws; if I am out of town for a week on vacation and someone posts some infringing content on MY site I could very well come back home and have my site missing from the Internet and replaced with an ICE banner because of a simple ACCUSATION from rights holders.

Re: Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

Re: Re: Re:

Because the ownership laws cover that lawn and every single other lawn that's mowed in any way resembling it. So you end up with two lawns mowed in a crosshatch pattern and the first guy who did it sues the second guy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

Ah, I get it, you work for Viacom where you upload your own content, point at it and say Youtube is supposed to fix it instead of... Ya know... Dealing with the situation and finding other things better to do. Good to know.

Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

The fact is that it is very hard to be against ProtectIP, because what you are supporting as a result is widespread piracy

Do you even see the kind of argument you're putting forward here?

"You don't like PROTECT IP! You must be for piracy and nothing else!"

You fail to realize that almost all of the people who have come out against PROTECT IP are not arguing against the proposed law on "piracy is good" grounds — they are arguing that if PROTECT IP is put in place, then it will destroy the sanctity of free speech and break the Internet to the point where it may as well be unusable. If the Internet is broken, then nobody benefits because nobody — including the very companies that PROTECT IP is supposed to "save" — gets to harness the Internet's potential to its fullest.

This is not about "protecting piracy". This is about keeping the Internet working the way it is now and protecting free speech.

If you don't think that either of those ideals is worth standing up to...well, I'm sure than China will have their little "walled garden" Internet up in a year or two, so you can always move there and see how you like that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

Paul, I agree with you generally, but I think you are falling a little bit for the boogieman or jackbooted thugs theory that just doesn't apply here.

None of this would change the fundamental structure of the internet. It will still be an IP based network connecting computers all over the world. That doesn't change. There will still be news sites, there will still be chat boards, there will still be games, celeb gossip, and all levels of horsecrap, just like there is today.

If the nature of your site is to permit unchecked uploads from users, and to publish them on your site as a result without verification, then you are taking a legal risk that is yours and yours alone. If you are allowing people to post content on your servers, you should accept responsibility for it. It wouldn't be a simple accusation, by the way, but would be an accusation with evidence, say like the file in question on your site.

Remember, if you are running a site that allows user uploads, even under current laws you are at risk if you go away for a week. If you get served with a DMCA notice, you have 48 hours to react - and if your host was served with the DMCA notice at the same time, they would be pretty much obliged to take you down unless you took action. Your situation really hasn't changed, has it? In the end, it all comes back to allowing unchecked and untracable user uploads.

Re:

Let's say that you film a six minute video of your family on vacation, and for five seconds, a popular song plays on the radio in the background.

You post that video to YouTube expecting to share it with friends and other family members to show them what a fun time you had.

Then that five seconds of nearly-unintelligble music gets your entire video yanked down thanks to the "Content Match" system that YouTube put in place after the record labels demanded a magic "pre-crime" content protection system.

If you don't see how certain stringent IP laws do not have a way of limiting free speech, then you aren't looking hard enough.

Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

I think it's a very good analogy. The horse and buggy v automobile comparison can be looked as part of the transportation industry.

Take that analogy and apply it to the music industry. Both the old-school record companies and the internet are trying to do the same thing: music distribution. The innovator will win out when they can provide the same basic service at increased speed and convenience, and lower cost of doing business.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

I don't think YouTube is a very good example at all! I spend a lot of time on YouTube and I rarely see content that should be considered a violation of the DMCA.

I think when you search YouTube LOOKING for such content, you'll find it. But IMHO I believe that the vast majority of user created content is perfectly fine and in no way a violation of ANYONE's rights.

How would YouTube know if the content is authorized or not anyway? That should be the job of the rights holders to identify and not the service provider.

I think most of the complaints about YouTube are from individuals LOOKING to find some form of IP theft. I think anyone that believes that there is any actual harm due to someone posting up a 30 second clip from the Daily Show is lying to themselves.

I have yet to be convinced that rights holders are not going after Google because they have deep pockets and they see settlement monies as a form of revenue even though there is little to no financial harm to said rights holders.

If YouTube was hosting full-featured HD content ripped from DVD or BR, I would feel a little more sympathetic for the rights holders.

New business models?

Let's look in at "A Lonely Place for Dying", one of the most serious efforts put forth by one of Mike's true believers. After getting plenty of free publicity from web sites like TorrentFreak and Slashdot, how much did our kool aid drinkers raise? $757 out of $40,000 as I write this.

But hey, these guys aren't selling out to Hollywood because TorrentFreak tells us they turned down real offers from Hollywood. I wonder if those offers were bigger than $757?

It's charming to watch TorrentFreak use words like milestone and talk about how PirateBay is "backing" the production as if that means anything. I'm guessing that PirateBay will just help people download the content just like they "back" all of the other content. (And all you P2P weasels can sit back and pretend that you're real Hollywood moguls. You're not "sharing" a film, you're "greenlighting it" and "backing it" when you seed it to a P2P network.)

Now I wish schemes like this would work. I'm glad they're giving it the old college try. I also wish the Easter Bunny would exist and I could sprout wings and fly over the rush hour traffic. But experience tells me that the world doesn't work that way.

Once again, Mike can blather on and on about new business models but I'm going to continue to be cynical about business. Every time I scratch the surface, I find more reality like this one.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

I'm not falling for anything.

I am an IT professional with 20 years in the Internet industry. I have EXTENSIVE expertise in how the Internet functions on all layers.

The individuals with concerns about changing the structure and stability of the DNS system UNDERSTAND the issues with what is being proposed. They also understand technology far better than the lawyers and lobbyists hired by the MPAA.

My site is not created for the purposes of allowing unchecked uploads from users. Almost all of my content is text based and user generated. Although the site does allow users to upload content, it is mostly just .PDF based guides for various hardware tweaking, etc.

I go through extreme efforts to make sure that I'm not serving up any illegal content and hand down severe penalties for users who promote illegal content, sites, etc.

With the current proposal; I have increased risk of losing my livelihood if someone decides to LINK to infringing content. I have to put faith in the MPAA and other rights holders to NOT misuse the system. Unfortunately; that's not an organization or industry I have ANY faith in to do the right thing.

Right now, If my datacenter was served with a DMCA notice they would call me immediately before disconnecting my hardware. They would not; however, be able to do anything about my domain being seized and replaced with an ICE warning without any prior notification.

DMCA works, to an extent, even with all of the improper DMCA takedown requests. At least it provides site owners some sort of advanced notification to deal with an issue.

How can someone operate a site on the Internet that allows for end-user contribution, something as simple as forums, without incurring MASSIVE legal risk if the responsibility for all end-user content is on the shoulders of the site operator.

That one Anonymous Coward statement you quoted is what I fear the most from our big-content overlords.

Re: Re: New business models?

Boy you've begun to lose it. Even the most extreme implementations of copyright don't guarantee success nor do they lock out anyone at all. You've got copyright once you push that button on the smartphone.

Go to it. Quit hanging out here and prove Mike right! Make a block buster with that cell phone and use the CC license. PirateBay is probably waiting on line 2 to give you the good news about "backing" your movie.

I just need to make sure that the MPAA and RIAA are not allowed to pay off our politicians, corrupt the political process, and introduce laws designed to prop up THEIR business at the sacrifice of everyone else.

You seem like the type of chap that would tell a woman that's just been raped that she needs to adapt her appearance in order to stop it from happening again.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

This "loophole" argument reminds me of the Assault Weapons Ban that expired during GW's term, wherein the legislature defined "assault weapons" as ones having certain superficial features. When the gun manufacturers responded by simply removing those superficial features, the bill supporters decried that gun manufacturers were using a "loophole" in the law to allow them to avoid the ban while selling essentially the same gun.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

> you are falling a little bit for the boogieman or
> jackbooted thugs theory that just doesn't apply here

I've got a newsflash for you. The jackbooted thugs is not a theory. Ask anyone who was doing something perfectly legalin their country and had their domain seized with no due process, notification or recourse. Or ask someone who was collateral damage of such as seizure.

Then the second part: it DOES apply here.

Just like the domain seizures, this will be abused and abused until what today sounds like a conspiracy theory eventually sounds like the good ol' days when things weren't so bad.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

They play the game of the grey area, being aware that a percentage of the material on their sites is illegal or infringing, but generally not taking proactive action until they have been ordered to do so by the courts (in the case of Youtube).

They DO NOT play in any grey area. They play within the current laws. The DMCA included the safe harbors to "promote growth on the internet", which it has. The problem with the **AA's is that they thought, at the time, that it would promote their growth, but since they sat on their asses and didn't innovate, someone else has beaten them to the punch and reaped the benefits and now they are acting like spoiled children.

Re:

> I am also equally at a loss at how protecting IP somehow limits free speech.

You are always at a loss for this no matter how many times it is explained.

The draconian laws you propose to protect IP are EXACTLY the laws to suppress free speech.

The tools to remove content (regardless of the nature of the content) without notice, due process or recourse are exactly the tools of censorship.

> The only speech that it might limit is the duplication
> of the speech that others have made.

Tell that to anyone who has already had their speech limited by the DMCA. Sometimes even over non-copyright issues (eg, trademark). Or where the complainant doesn't have standing. Or where the complainant's marketing arm upload the "offending" content. Or where the "rogue" site belongs to one of your big stars. I could go on.

How can Hollywood's obsolete business model even compare to the value of free speech?

Paul, the real issue sadly is the imbalance. You are all concerned about your personal rights, but you fail to understand (or accept) the incredible abuses that rights owners face.

DMCA makes their content "free to take" in 48 hour slices, plus obliges them to scan the internet constantly to find where it is being abused. They have to spend money, time, and effort to find the content, figure out the beneficial owners, DMCA them, the hosts, etc. In the end, content can spend days if not weeks being abused.

While you may run an honest site, many companies and individuals play games around the DMCA system to profit. Their abuses mean that you may suffer somewhat more restrictive laws as a result.

Your "increased risk" is very low, especially if your site isn't one that profits generally from this sort of activity. A spam comment or something pointing to an illegal share isn't something that will suddenly get your site zapped out of the sky, any more than the current system with DMCA means your site disappears forever. Your actions to police and maintain your site pretty much goes a long way to mitigating your risk.

Sadly, because other people have abused the system, the rules will likely be tightened. You will almost certainly need to look at your business model and perhaps change the ways you do some things. I doubt you will have to make significant changed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Give DuPuis some credit....

> Probably the best example is YouTube.

Yes, YouTube. A good example.

WHY should YouTube be responsible for filtering user content?

More importantly . . .

HOW should YouTube detect pirated content?

The owners of that content can't even tell which YouTube videos are pirated. Example: content owner's marketing arm upload content to YouTube. Then content owner's extortion arm files a DMCA takedown. How was YouTube supposed to know that content uploaded by the marketing arm was infringing?

I agree that the marketing arm that uploaded the infringing content should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for uploading that. But how is YouTube supposed to have known it was infringing when it was upload by Viacom?

Re: New business models?

Let's look in at "A Lonely Place for Dying", one of the most serious efforts put forth by one of Mike's true believers. After getting plenty of free publicity from web sites like TorrentFreak and Slashdot, how much did our kool aid drinkers raise? $757 out of $40,000 as I write this.

I don't know anything about this project, but I'm not clear how one failure (and this project just launched so I'm not sure how it's a failure) proves anything.

If you want, I can dig up an example of a big budget movie bringing in next to nothing at the box office. Does that prove that the old model doesn't work?

Once again, Mike can blather on and on about new business models but I'm going to continue to be cynical about business. Every time I scratch the surface, I find more reality like this one

And I can just as easily "scratch the surface" and find movies that went the traditional route and lost a shit ton of money. What does that prove?

The point has never been that there's some business model that makes every bit of content super profitable. That didn't happen under the old system and it won't happen ever. So what point are you making other than utter cluelessness?

You are all concerned about your personal rights, but you fail to understand (or accept) the incredible abuses that rights owners face.

Straight from the shill to you!

If rights owners don't like the system ... quit making content ... or quit complaining. Human rights trump corporate rights. God, your statement is so un-American I almost wish you could be hung for treason.

This is what he would do by destroying the Safe Harbor laws, limiting third party liability. It exposes everyone to bad laws that should be directed at the ones that the industry has grievances with. If they want to stop piracy, it should be on *their* dime, not the taxpayer's.

There are 5 laws of piracy that work in cultural markets as explained by Joe Karaganis:

Otherwise they should follow the laws of piracy:

1) Persistant gaps between supply and demand due to artificial constraints on price or supply will be filled by pirate producers.

2) When faced with piracy, industry incumbents almost always turn to the state to defend their market positions and usually adapt their business models only when other recourse has failed.

3)Pirate Producers tend to operate at the edges of the sphere of influence of incumbents, where differences in law and difficulties of enforcement create spaces of ambiguous or conflicted legality.

4) Piracy, at these economic and political peripheries, has a well established role as a development strategy that facilitates the circulation of knowledge goods.

5) Piracy plays a clear political role as a counterweight to the centralized control of information - whether by states or private interests.

----------------------------------------

It is not for we, the people to be told how we can get our media. It is up to suppliers to use all technology to their advantage and benefit from their success and learn from their failures. If you do a good job, money comes to you. Should you find your purse is lean, then money escapes you, for you do not know the inherent value of it.

1) there are few gaps between supply and demand, the current piracy is one of opportunity and abilty, and not one of a shortage of supply. The only short of supply perhaps is the content at the price they want to pay (nothing).

2) When faced with illegal activity, the incumbents try to work within the legal system to get relief. When that doesn't happen, they will often push for laws to clarify what the courts are unable to handle, or to remove untenable situations.

3) Because this current situation is one of ease of piracy and not one that requires great skills, the who deal is different. They are hiding in plain view.

4) Again, it is only done because of the ease and lack of risk. It may ease the distribution, but in removing the economic incentives to create, may have a longer term negative effect on the amounts and / or quality of materials available.

5) There is no central control, except perhaps in North Korea.

At the end, the "5 laws of piracy" are more the "5 reasons why I think I can take anything for nothing neener neener". It's self supporting, self justifying thinking at it's finest.

Re: Re: New business models?

You said: "I don't know anything about this project, but I'm not clear how one failure (and this project just launched so I'm not sure how it's a failure) proves anything."

Me: On the other hand, you are often willing to allow a single or rare success to prove something. Can you accept that with all the promotion, all the exposure, all the grand flowing of information that is going on, this project and many others can't get going?

There are big budget movies that fail (Waterworld, anyone), but it is the reason why the profit on the next one perhaps isn't quite so obscene. Risk and return, you don't make a return on all of them, but when you do, it can pay off the risk on the others. Without the return, would anyone take the risk?

Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

Wow, Anonymous Astroturfer....

You are completely missing the point, and keep falling into the same trappings as the the chilling report - PROTECT IP is a badlaw, plain and simple. There are already laws in placeto protect IP theft, as we see in the courts today. Piracy isalready successfully being prosecuted.

When you have laws created and argued by people that have little understanding of technology, you end up with over reaching, bad laws.

Hyperlinking to sites that have links to infringing content is the same as someone publishing a book on how to break laws. We may not like it, but it is still freedom of speech.
The process of obtaining a warrant before going after a web site is a part of our republic's checks and balances - arguing against those checks is giving too much power to one part of the government - what's wrong with oversight? There is no urgency here.

Finally, you really have no Concept of the internet. Fuzzy dice? More like the road the car/content travels on. No internet in today's age= no distribution. Content that cant be transported is useless. And since when do these companies have a monopoly on content? Look at amazonkindle - one of the top sellers is a self-published author.

You would be hard pressed to find a more accurate indicator of an argument without merit than the words "common sense." The application of common sense requires that the issue is simple and the facts well known and understood. Common sense arguments on complex issues are always based on either substituting emotion for fact or cherry picking the facts to match your point. And while cherries make a fine pie, they are poor rhetorical tools.

Cherry picking can be used to "prove" any side in any debate using common sense. For example, since reliance on copyright has made many musicians rich, common sense tells us copyright is important for artists. On the other, better than 99% of musicians don't write or record, so common sense also tells us copyright holds very little importance to artists. In reality, neither is a valid argument because both lack the breadth of information required to understand such a complex issue.

Re: Re: Re: New business models?

On the other hand, you are often willing to allow a single or rare success to prove something. Can you accept that with all the promotion, all the exposure, all the grand flowing of information that is going on, this project and many others can't get going?

*sigh* I know I've explained this before, but I'll explain it again for you.

(1) You can't prove that a business model doesn't work by pointing to a single failure. That's called proving a negative.

(2) You *can* prove that a business model *can* work by pointing to a success story.

(3) Nowhere have I said "if you just copy *x* you too will succeed."

(4) The success examples are case studies from which to learn, as are the case studies of failure.

(5) Not only have I shown single success stories, I've also shown stats and data of larger successes, but when I did so people like you (hell, it probably was you in one your frequent personality overhauls) insisted that there were no clear examples of individual successes, so I now show some examples

"The only short of supply perhaps is the content at the price they want to pay (nothing)."

And if you read Media Piracy, do you realize the self defeating that's going on by the movie industry with 3 month windows?

" When that doesn't happen, they will often push for laws to clarify what the courts are unable to handle, or to remove untenable situations."

No, it's pretty apparent in countries such as Brazil and India where the courts are against the foreigners who want to impose higher damages for the copyright infringement. Read the book.

"They are hiding in plain view."
Seriously? I mean, that's the best you can do to obfuscate the issue? *sigh*

"It may ease the distribution, but in removing the economic incentives to create, may have a longer term negative effect on the amounts and / or quality of materials available."

No one's moving a goal post. People have found newer ways to incentivize ways to create despite copyright law. And there's an abundance of materials available, not less. You've just hurt your own argument.

"There is no central control, except perhaps in North Korea"

So what is the ICE doing then? They aren't providing information and by its very nature, the government does collect information in a centralized manner. How it distributes is more of a top down method which means it has to go through a lot of collective hands, slowing down that distribution.

Compare that to say, Wikileaks or Bittorrent which is the better distribution method than waiting for Universal to bring out The first Avenger three months after its US release.

Re: Re: New business models?

Actually, you do know about the VODO projects. You've been writing about them for years. ( see all )

Why just after your last trip to Austin, you came back singing about how wonderful new business models like VODO were going to change everything. Yet even with the unusual amount of publicity given Zenith and this film by serious venues like Slashdot, they're no where near their very modest goals.

The point isn't that big budget films also flop. The point is that there aren't even modest success stories from these so-called new business models. (Many are just retreads from the early days of United Artists.) The best you can point to after all of these years and all of this free publicity is probably Radiohead, a band on the way down who still only made a tiny fraction of what the old system netted them.

Perhaps the music industry is getting bigger. Perhaps it's getting smaller. Perhaps the movie industry is thriving. Perhaps it isn't. In any case, almost all of the revenues continue to come old business models not these utopian dreams. That's why Kevin Smith turned to the paywall when he needed to earn back a fair return for his art.

Re: Re: Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

The content can be medical records, medical exams, learning, and of course entertainment.

About content from Hollywood being the desirable today that could change if they start down the path of punishment instead of entertaining people, just look at what happened to the music industry they believed that they were the only game in town, free legal alternatives started to pop up everywhere and now they are not that important anymore even piracy of their "products" has dwindled to almost nothing.

I do understand the rights of content producers. I honestly do. I also understand the uphill battle they face in terms of stopping piracy and monetizing their works.

My issue is not with the industry working to protect their rights, rather the industry trying to protect their rights by infringing on mine.

I didn't take home $47.5 million dollars last year in salary + bonus. I didn't even take home $4.7 million dollars. I get rather upset and start writing letters to my Senator when laws like Protect IP come about to try and make sure those individuals making $47.5 million take home $49 million next year.

If it really takes that much time to scan the Internet to determine where the "rights holders" content is being abused, maybe the abuse isn't such a big deal. Honestly; when DMCA takedowns get issued over a one minute home video that has music playing in the background, how do you justify that? It's like you're going out of your way to find cases of abuse to make the issue seem grander than it really is.

Please, don't take this as me saying that copyright infringement isn't an issue. But the industry is absolutely going to lose support of the population when they pull stuff as I described above.

When it comes to my own site, I do what I can and I'm happy to say that I keep infringing content away. But when I see some of the DMCA takedowns being issued for sites that operate and provide content provided by the CREATOR, I question how much thought someone would put into filing a takedown request against me, or get my site blacklisted, because someone posted a link to some remote site with infringing content.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New business models?

the most successful users are earning six-figure incomes from the Web site. For some, like Michael Buckley, the self-taught host of a celebrity chatter show, filming funny videos is now a full-time job.

Mr. Buckley quit his day job in September after his online profits had greatly surpassed his salary as an administrative assistant for a music promotion company. His thrice-a-week online show “is silly,” he said, but it has helped him escape his credit-card debt.

You see Youtube pays more then the industry is paying apparently and this is from 2008.

Now imagine how much someone made just by putting a funny cat video on Youtube that got 26 million views.

Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

It really didn't take long to find the dumbest comment Ive heard in a while.

Its obvious that Mike will not be adding a "moron" button next to "insightful", even though this comment reeks of stupidity.

"Without content, the internet is an empty pipe. If the content is only trash, it's a waste of a pipe.

Remember: things are pirated because they are popular and desirable, not the other way around. "

So this moron believes that if you removed ALL of the copyrighted content from the internet today, that it would be an empty pipe? Really???? Ever heard of Skype, MSN, YAHOO, Google, Facebook, email, xbox, secondlife, p2p networks, cloud computing (and the list goes on) ????? Isnt Facebook alone worth more than all of the major labels combined???

Re: Re: Re: New business models?

What the hell are you going on about?

Pioneer One is doing well, along with a few other movies on Vodo. What's your point? It hasn't reached critical mass, where it's mainstream but it's doing well with the audience that it has. It's like you're criticizing Kickstarter for being a new way to try to fund movies and music without really knowing what the hell is going on in the day to day business.

And there have been successes. Sindel was pretty cool, showcasing the freeware of open software used to model it (even if it's hard to use).

Your last paragraph flip flopped more than Mitt Romney and John Kerry over their entire political career. Try to make some sense then I'll get back to you.

Re: Without content, the internet is an empty pipe??

The essence of the Internet is connectivity, not content. Remember, there were other, proprietary, online forums before the Internet. They had access to valuable “premium” content that the Internet could not offer. They had brand recognition before anyone had heard of the Internet. They had bigger promotional budgets than the early ISPs could afford. Yet the Internet managed to become more popular than any of them. Why? Because it did a better job of connecting people to each other.

Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

Anyone can google these numbers

And yet you are unable to supply a simple link as requested. I'm sure there is a logical fallacy regarding an argument to 'common knowledge' but I can't be bothered to find out. Maybe you should google it?

Re: Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

Re: Re: Re: New business models?

Actually, you do know about the VODO projects. You've been writing about them for years. ( see all )

Knowing that VODO exists and having written about them a few times doesn't mean I'm intimately familiar with every project they do. I would have thought that was obvious.

Why just after your last trip to Austin, you came back singing about how wonderful new business models like VODO were going to change everything

Please point me to where I said that or retract your false statement.

Yet even with the unusual amount of publicity given Zenith and this film by serious venues like Slashdot, they're no where near their very modest goals.

Again, no one said that every film succeeds. Again, I can point you to big budget Hollywood films that fail too. What does that prove?

The point isn't that big budget films also flop.

Nor did I say it was. But that proves that pointing to a single flop doesn't discredit an entire model.

The point is that there aren't even modest success stories from these so-called new business models.

Then you're not looking very hard.

The best you can point to after all of these years and all of this free publicity is probably Radiohead, a band on the way down who still only made a tiny fraction of what the old system netted them.

Oddly, I rarely mention Radiohead, because I don't think they're a very good example. But I have pointed to a lot more examples that are much more sensible.

But you're the one who's factually challenged.

Perhaps the music industry is getting bigger. Perhaps it's getting smaller. Perhaps the movie industry is thriving. Perhaps it isn't.

Perhaps some of us have facts so that it's not perhaps.

In any case, almost all of the revenues continue to come old business models not these utopian dreams. That's why Kevin Smith turned to the paywall when he needed to earn back a fair return for his art

Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

14.6b in recorded music sales
1.5b in concert revenues
1.0b in merchandise (est)

That's 17.1 Billion.

2009:

6.3b in recorded music
4.6b in concert revenues
2.0b in merchandise (est)

That's 12.9 billion.

It's not even close.

(1) Recorded music numbers are not accurate. They are based on outdated methodology like SoundScan which fails to capture much of the indie market.

(2) Concert revenue numbers are not accurate. They're based on Pollstar which only covers larger venues, and leaves out the vast middle class of musicians.

(3) (est)? Based on what?

(4) You totally left out licensing which has also grown massively.

(5) You ignore the rise of advertising in music -- which has become a big source of revenue lately.

(6) You don't count all of the new systems to make money (direct-to-fan systems, tunecore, kickstarter, bandcamp, etc.).

The deeper you look, the sooner you realize that (a) more money is being spent, (b) the only decrease is in the money going to record labels and most importantly (c) if you look at money actually going to musicians, it has risen *dramatically*.

Anyone can google these numbers, yet you persist in trying to present your alternate reality as fact.

And those who actually understand the industry and know how bogus those numbers are can explain why you're wrong.

And why should I or any other taxpayer have to foot the bill for that research and enforcement? Hell,Big Content already wastes so much oof out time an money via the courts, I think they should have to pay back the $billions due there.

Perhaps stop worrying about all this free advertising, and find a way to exploit the growing audience and interest. Well all be better off.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

I don't have to. Mike is the one saying "The deeper you look, the sooner you realize that (a) more money is being spent, (b) the only decrease is in the money going to record labels and most importantly (c) if you look at money actually going to musicians, it has risen *dramatically*.". I would expect him to back up those assertions with numbers, not just vague statements.

Re:

DuPuis is saying that instead of doing what Senator Wyden was elected to do (represent his constituents), he should instead listen to monied interests and property holders.

I was about to post something along those lines.

Someone should gently remind him that copyright's sole purpose is to benefit "his misinformed and misdirected constituents."

But, it's even worse than that. He's saying that not only should Wyden not listen to his constituency (i.e. the public), he should not listen to any other business that has a problem with these laws... which is pretty much any business that isn't represented by the RIAA or MPAA.

Bill itself?

Say, why is it that every time this bill comes up, nobody actually talks about the bill? They only talk about "supporting piracy," demanding proof that alternate business models work, or how every Internet company makes money on infringement.

Nothing about the actual concerns raised by the many entities who are against the bill, none of which are pro-piracy, many of which make a living off of IP themselves.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

Can you provide a link for God's sake? I can throw up billions of dollars in the comments here too, doesn't make it true. Whereas Mike Masnick, in previous articles, has linked to various studies.
Here:

1999: Eleventy Nine Gazillion

2011: Infinity Six Squillion

There, my numbers are just as accurate and believable as yours (i.e., not at all!)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

He defends the music licence collection groups, such as the one in Spain, whose operators were arrested for extortion and fraud?
Plus, I love the tone of your arguments. When Masnick shreds your side of the debate, you result to calling him a sick and twisted person. Please, for the sake of the children, if you do call him that, have some proof. Throw up a photo of him molesting a goat or something as horrible (no photoshops please). Until then, we don't want to hear from you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

It's total bullshit. Soundscan was doing the numbers in '99 just the same as they did in 2009. Same with with Pollstar; they've been around before Masnick was even born.

Um. No one claimed that Soundscan or Pollstar haven't been collecting this data. Why make that up?

What we did say, and which you can't refute because you know it's true, is that neither Soundscan nor Pollstar accurately reflect the market any more. They may have in the past (more Soundscan than Pollstar, which has always had problems), but today their data is simply not representative of what's happening in the market.

He's a frightening, sick, narcissistic sociopath.

I'm curious why you feel the need to end every comment after you've been proved wrong with a personal attack on me (often defamatory).

I still find your hatred for me so odd. Why would you so hate someone trying to help you make more money?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

No, pirate liarboy

I'm neither a pirate, nor a liar. Why would you claim otherwise? I've already told you that I've never downloaded/shared any unauthorized content and I pay for all the music/movies/software I get. I just spent a bunch of money on new CDs (yes, physical CDs), which I do all the time.

You have no evidence that the Pollstar numbers are wrong.

Oh come on. Everyone knows that Pollstar data only shows a portion of the market, and the company has been accused directly of being wrong in its numbers by Live Nation itself:

I'm currently working with a separate database of concert info that covers a much larger segment of the market and I'll be reporting on that in the coming months (I can't reveal the specifics yet, because my agreement with the company is that we'll announce things together later this year once we've analyzed the data).

You have no evidence that the SoundScan numbers are wrong. Or that they are so wrong that they are missing *billions* in order to make your lies more believable.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

I'm not in a band, you weirdo.

Perhaps I'm mistaken. From your obnoxious tone and ridiculous insults, I assumed you were the same person who admitted a few months ago that some band you worked with had to get day jobs because they refused to embrace the internet, and instead listened to your crazy ideas for how to make money.

Perhaps that was someone else.

Did some major label drown your puppy?

Not at all. I actually know and get along with people at most of the major labels (don't know folks at EMI, but the other three...). I actually keep hoping that they'll stop this suicide path that they're on and start recognizing how to adapt. I'm trying to help them. I was actually over at UMG in NY last month talking to folks there about it.

Why would I hate the major labels? I think that they're making braindead strategic moves, but hate's got nothing to do with it.

Stop trying to change the subject that it has now been proven you've been LYING about your music business stats for YEARS

Huh? You have a funny definition of "proof," considering that I've already pointed out that you're wrong. And I never changed the subject at all.

Kind of amusing that you accuse me of changing the subject when you keep resorting back to personal insults and defamation, rather than addressing the key issues at hand. I mean, if you even *could* discuss these things logically, it might be interesting, but you've never even tried. All you do is toss around insults at me as if that gives you any credibility.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

And you provided no data to anything after being smacked in the face with the lies you've been telling for YEARS.

Stop pretending your allegiance lies with musicians, you scumbag. You defend those that rip them off at every opportunity, practically every day here.

You are truly a sick and twisted person, you shill.

You comment is so generic and pointless i can copy it and aim it at you without any effort, thank god for Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V !
Oh and i am actually programming a automatic shill comment generator thanks for you contribution :)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

Okay, who's the sociopath here? The person who refuses to understand the emotions behind the motives, or the guy who has been proven to repeatedly be in contact with those who can change things, in an attempt to do so?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

Heh. I notice you don't respond to the points on why neither are accurate, and how they don't count everything. Typical.

And you mean "there are no other data aggregators" that you are aware of. Just wait and see.

You've STILL not provided ANYTHING to back up the desperate lies you quickly whipped up to try and cover your sorry ass.

Actually, I have. You have not.

You sick sociopath.

Seriously, why do you end every comment with that? You're not helping your case.

I would love to have an informed discussion with you if you would just stop insulting me at every turn and actually bothered to respond to the points I bring up. For the life of me, I can't figure out what you get out of acting this way.

Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

Nice, to accuse someone of ripping off musicians (without proof I might add), in a thread where you are trying to defend an industry that was designed to rip off musicians.

I have yet to see your proof that Mike has been lying.

Yes, the recording industry is failing, but mostly not because of piracy.
No, the music industry is not the same as the recording industry, and yes the music industry is actually booming. (looking at your own numbers)

1) there are few gaps between supply and demand, the current piracy is one of opportunity and abilty, and not one of a shortage of supply. The only short of supply perhaps is the content at the price they want to pay (nothing).

The demand is unencumbered formats without the lying promos ("copyright is theft, and a criminal offense") beforehand, playable on the media center that I bought for my media consumption.
The supply to that demand from Big Media is not there. There's your market, right there!
I just want the movie and the music without all the bullshit. If I bought the dvd I don't want to be called a criminal, just because it might be possible that I'd copy/rip this dvd.

2) When faced with illegal activity, the incumbents try to work within the legal system to get relief. When that doesn't happen, they will often push for laws to clarify what the courts are unable to handle, or to remove untenable situations.

Push for laws is right, yeah, given that all around the world the Big Media corporations are trying to push the scales of the copyright balance in their favor.
Where you have secret treaties like ACTA that are written by the Big Media lobbyists, without any input from consumer groups. The latter should be a big player in the debate too, and they are being steadfastly ignored.

See why we have so little faith in that Big Media will do the right thing? It's because of their past and current actions.

3) Because this current situation is one of ease of piracy and not one that requires great skills, the who deal is different. They are hiding in plain view.

This is all down to Big Media's incompetence and unwillingness to change when Napster first arrived to the scene. That system was easy to administrate and control, because it was a heavy top-down structure. By prosecuting it, they made people aware of that avenue of getting their media, and made it go underground, up until the very decentralized systems we have today.

4) Again, it is only done because of the ease and lack of risk. It may ease the distribution, but in removing the economic incentives to create, may have a longer term negative effect on the amounts and / or quality of materials available.

Risk free? Hardly, as there are many scammers and virusses and stuff like that in the shady corners of the web you have to travel to, to get your stuff.

5) There is no central control, except perhaps in North Korea.

I think the IFPI and MPAA and RIAA and organisations like that will beg to differ.

Re:

First of all, he reposts the letter from the copyright law professors who object to PROTECT-IP, except he substitutes "Stolen Credit Cards" for "Infringement," as if they're remotely the same thing.

He also proposes doing away with safe harbors, while laying it on the ol' whipping boy, Google:

Why don't we just get rid of the Digital Millennium Act (DMCA) Safe Harbors? The legions of criminals that have been enabled by the Safe Harbors and supported financially by Google et al would disappear in a nano second at the swords of civil litigation. All of this is financially driven by advertising. Make no mistake, Google et al wants the government not only to give it Safe Harbor from prosecution for enabling and benefitting financially from its serial abuse and theft of yours and my intellectual property, but it wants the government to continue, through the DMCA Safe Harbors to enable the compulsory, rate-less, perpetual, irrevocable license of yours and my intellectual property it has no right to in the name of free speech and enabling innovativeness. To the detriment of who? The entire Nation.

It's not just that every single sentence this guy writes is provably false. It's that he's so utterly insane about the whole thing.

I think this must be the same douchenozzle that kept calling Mike a "psychopath" and a "scumbag." He's like Fred Phelps crossed with Jack Valenti.

Re: Re: What innovation resulted from Safe Harbors?

So if the **AA's are stealing from their customers (via lawsuit, overreaching laws, 'criminal liability' for entertainment...) and from their clients (aka artists, via one sided contracts, performance rights scams, or just outright fraud) what does that make them?

I totally agree with you that the ends do not justify the means, I think we need to abolish the **AA's immediately as their means does not justify their existence.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: waaaaait

Re: Bill itself?

That. They can't talk about the bill itself because it is abusive and no sane person would defend it. So they engage in smearing campaigns to discredit those who are against the bill and actually have a point.